State of Connecticut v. Michael Edmonds.

Summary

The dissent would affirm the Appellate Court because the record was inadequate to review the defendant's unpreserved claim that he was seized when an officer ordered him to stop. It further concludes that the defendant was not seized until the patdown, at which point the officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances. The dissent argues that the majority improperly substituted its own factual inferences for the trial court's findings and applied an overly expansive seizure standard. The concurrence agrees that the verbal command constituted an unsupported seizure but emphasizes different concerns, including that the decision appropriately protects constitutional rights in high-crime areas and does not prevent routine police questioning.